Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print  
Author Topic: ORACLE begins patent-trolling with Java.  (Read 6381 times)
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #30 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 02:13:28 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
Quote
abolition of systems that have, however poorly, functioned for hundreds or thousands of years, is never a good idea
the pre-IP system functioned quite fine for a considerable length of time, until *only recently* did they decide to start fiddling in the market hoping to stimulate areas unnaturally and give in to people complaining about theft of things that we didn't even think could be stolen (imagine if someone went into court and complained about their neighbor stealing their air...).

Quote
I'm arguing against throwing everything out and going with a completely new and untested system.
Pre-IP is not untested.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #31 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 06:52:37 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Non-IP is untested in modern society; pre-IP did not have to deal with digital information.

In any case, all I'm saying is that abolishing patents and copyright all at once is both impossible and not likely to work well.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #32 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 09:29:43 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
pre-IP is one in the same with Non-IP, and we did have pre-digital-IP, the state under which Microsoft was able to thrive (among other companies) until they finally decided to refocus their energies into instating IP and suing the crap out of Xerox for an icon that they stole from Xerox in the first place.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #33 Posted on: August 17, 2010, 09:50:28 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
So... patents were invented after Microsoft? Wow, that company is older than I thought.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #34 Posted on: August 18, 2010, 07:51:02 AM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
Microsoft and Xerox was a copyright case, not a patent one. As we get into the digital age, IP largely took hold in the form of Copyright, rarely did we see Patents except for in hardware, but hardware has been around for longer than hardware Patents as well.

These are technologies that the government could not anticipate, and thus did not have laws for. During the time that they were free of copyright restriction is the time we see the most innovation. Instability was also prevalent, not because it was unregulated, but because it was new. Regulations like copyright, if implemented too soon, would have completely crippled the digital age, and we'd be stuck with the least instable (although still very unstable) piece of crap that came about, and nobody could innovate off of it without paying them a pretty penny for the idea. Fortunately enough, it was implemented late enough that the digital market had stabilized somewhat reasonably and we ended up with Microsoft on top with their still-quite-buggy system. It was only several cases later which *released* some of the holds of IP that innovation, and competition, such as linux, Open Office, etc, started to continue the stabilization process and provide the needed competition to keep Microsoft in check.

Also, I've been kind enough to refrain from pointing out all the fallacies you've been making up to now.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #35 Posted on: August 18, 2010, 11:19:00 AM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Look, I may not have articulated this as well as I could have, but my point is not that we shouldn't abolish IP laws. I think that's a totally viable solution. My point is that change has to happen incrementally- the American revolution kept many of the same practices that were already in place or that had already been in use in other governments. They didn't jump straight to universal sovereignty, free the slaves and fix civil rights all at once, because it never could have worked- the country would have crumbled.

People and factions that work toward change will generally have radical ideals that motivate them. However, besides the fact that those ideals are generally impossible to achieve, at least right away, they may or may not be the best solution to the problem. Most ideas have some good  and some bad aspects, and incremental change can take both sides into account. Working toward your ideals without trying to toss everything out at once is a lot more productive, which is why I brought up fixing IP laws. There are plenty of possible solutions to IP trolling and yours is only one of them.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #36 Posted on: August 18, 2010, 03:51:51 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
A swindler is using a pyramid scheme to bring his patrons money. Eventually, the scheme starts running out of patrons, so patrons start losing money. Should we fix the scheme (probably by printing money to bail out the swindler) or abolish it?

An easily removed cancerous growth has started to sprout from your head and is impairing certain mental capacities as well as being quite aesthetically displeasing. Should we fix the problem by chopping off the visible part, or should we abolish the cancer?

An alcoholic is suffering from a hangover. Should we fix the problem by giving him a couple more beers, or should we abolish his alcohol consumption?



I agree that perhaps we can gradually wean ourselves of our IP addiction, but the point I want to get across is that in order for our society/economy to function most efficiently (e.g. to most efficiently improve the quality of life), it must be done without IP, which means that at some point we may have to go through a withdrawal. We may try to soften the blow by 'fixing' IP, but those solutions must be *temporary* steps towards the goal of IP, or else if we stay with the 'fix', we will be functioning inefficiently - creating market distortions, protecting shitty products from competition to improve them, and overall just not improving the quality of life.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2010, 03:54:32 PM by IsmAvatar » Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #37 Posted on: August 18, 2010, 07:35:28 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society, like IP laws.

While abolishing IP is a possible solution, it is not the only solution. The idea that an efficient economy precludes any kind of IP laws is entirely unproven. Your point of view is only one of many that have merit.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #38 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 06:53:59 AM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
It is proven praxeologically (see Kinsella, see also Mises - Human Action. I can also briefly outline the reasoning for you if you haven't the time to read those), and there is much evidence to support it empirically (see Kinsella and references, see also Boldrin, Levine - Against Intellectual Monopoly and references).

If anything is unproven, furthermore, unsound and empirically false, it is the idea that an efficient economy includes any kind of IP laws.
If there's any kind of untested system that I'd be afraid to try out, it would be your "fixed IP" system.


Quote
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society
lol, ok, you got me. Law enforcement, medical science, and addiction are not present in society.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 07:04:37 AM by IsmAvatar » Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #39 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 12:14:54 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
Look, I'm not arguing IP laws. I'm sure you can look past my fallacious examples and bad writing to see what I'm talking about.

Quote
I was not referring to law enforcement, medical science or addiction. I was referring to systems that are a part of society
lol, ok, you got me. Law enforcement, medical science, and addiction are not present in society.
XD I can't believe I said that. What I meant was more that they don't govern society, and in the case of law enforcement, it's merely enforcing the systems that are already there; changes they make are more short-term and (hopefully) don't change the way society is run. Hopefully that makes more sense.
Logged
Offline (Female) IsmAvatar
Reply #40 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 02:09:41 PM

LateralGM Developer
LGM Developer
Location: Pennsylvania/USA
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 891

View Profile Email
I'm not sure that I follow. IP doesn't really govern society either. Whether I own a song or not, the only real difference is my quality of life. It may determine whether I listen to the song or not, and the tools I have at my disposal to efficiently go about my day. But something like law enforcement constantly restricts or encourages societal behavior. Something like medical science greatly influences our lives in determining whether we live or die, in what states of pain we are in, and the states of those we hold close to us. IP may take it toll in these respective fields, however, especially in the form of techonology. It is more of an auxiliary effect.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #41 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 06:09:05 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
IP governs how companies and the economy run. Society was probably a bad choice of words, like the rest of that paragraph. I'm talking about changes to the how business, government and society run- stopping pyramid schemes, removing tumors and rehabilitating addicts are not that kind of change.
Logged
Offline (Male) retep998
Reply #42 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 07:10:31 PM

Member
Location: Where else?
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 248
MSN Messenger - retep998@charter.net AOL Instant Messenger - retep998 Yahoo Instant Messenger - retep998
View Profile Email
why don't we just remove ip laws bit by bit and see how stuff works as we remove it.
we don't do it also at once to avoid startling people like rusky but we don't take forever and piss of people like ism.

there, problem solved.
Logged
Offline (Male) Rusky
Reply #43 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 08:17:18 PM

Resident Troll
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 961
MSN Messenger - rpjohnst@gmail.com
View Profile WWW Email
...that was my point, slightly oversimplified.
Logged
Offline (Male) RetroX
Reply #44 Posted on: August 19, 2010, 08:51:51 PM

Master of all things Linux
Contributor
Location: US
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1055
MSN Messenger - classixretrox@gmail.com
View Profile Email
The funny thing is that it won't happen unless we miraculously gain a politician (or several) that is (are) not (a) lawyer(s).

Which won't happen.
Logged
My Box: Phenom II 3.4GHz X4 | ASUS ATI RadeonHD 5770, 1GB GDDR5 RAM | 1x4GB DDR3 SRAM | Arch Linux, x86_64 (Cube) / Windows 7 x64 (Blob)
Quote from: Fede-lasse
Why do all the pro-Microsoft people have troll avatars? :(
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
  Print